Anna Chernysheva: Court to Keep Looking into Raduga’s Case
5 June 2012 (09:19)
The court hearings related to the construction of Raduga Retail Park in Yekaterinburg’s Verkh-Isetsky District will go on, Partner at Legal Interests Group of Companies Anna Chernysheva told UrBC.
Now Yekaterinburg Municipal Duma Deputy Maxim Petlin, whose interests Ms Chernysheva represented, was unable to prove in Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court that the city council’s decision to allocate a land allotment for the park had been illegitimate.
‘The court claims the only way to allocate an allotment is through signing a primary rental contract. We feel, however, that a change in the way an allotment can be used (from ‘a recreational facility’, that is, a park for the locals, to ‘allotment for the construction of commercial estate’) is actually an act of providing a developer with a construction site,’ Chernysheva explained.
‘Any other interpretation contradicts the existing legislation and the emerging court practice. The appeals claim will be placed with the court within the required time period,’ she added.
Now the city council, the Municipal Duma, OOO Shopping Center, OOO INTEK, and AutoCenter-Opyt were involved in the suit as third parties to the case.
Following Petlin’s complaint regarding Yekaterinburg Council violating the antimonopoly legislation by offering up a land allotment in Repin St-Zoologicheskaya St in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region division of Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service instituted Case 44. On December 14, 2011, the proceedings were stopped because the fact of the antimonopoly agreement having been violated had not been confirmed. Petlin felt this ruling had been illegitimate and violated the rights and the legal interests of the plaintiff, so he took the case to the arbitration court.
According to the plaintiff, the city council illegally signed a rental contract with OOO INTEK involving a land allotment (66:41:0304032:33, total area 52,356 sq m). The council then let OOO Shopping Center assume the rights and the obligations over the allotment later on without conducting any tender and without complying with the procedure for the allocation of land allotments not related to construction purposes.
Now Yekaterinburg Municipal Duma Deputy Maxim Petlin, whose interests Ms Chernysheva represented, was unable to prove in Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court that the city council’s decision to allocate a land allotment for the park had been illegitimate.
‘The court claims the only way to allocate an allotment is through signing a primary rental contract. We feel, however, that a change in the way an allotment can be used (from ‘a recreational facility’, that is, a park for the locals, to ‘allotment for the construction of commercial estate’) is actually an act of providing a developer with a construction site,’ Chernysheva explained.
‘Any other interpretation contradicts the existing legislation and the emerging court practice. The appeals claim will be placed with the court within the required time period,’ she added.
Now the city council, the Municipal Duma, OOO Shopping Center, OOO INTEK, and AutoCenter-Opyt were involved in the suit as third parties to the case.
Following Petlin’s complaint regarding Yekaterinburg Council violating the antimonopoly legislation by offering up a land allotment in Repin St-Zoologicheskaya St in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region division of Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service instituted Case 44. On December 14, 2011, the proceedings were stopped because the fact of the antimonopoly agreement having been violated had not been confirmed. Petlin felt this ruling had been illegitimate and violated the rights and the legal interests of the plaintiff, so he took the case to the arbitration court.
According to the plaintiff, the city council illegally signed a rental contract with OOO INTEK involving a land allotment (66:41:0304032:33, total area 52,356 sq m). The council then let OOO Shopping Center assume the rights and the obligations over the allotment later on without conducting any tender and without complying with the procedure for the allocation of land allotments not related to construction purposes.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |
Other materials on the topic::
- Avtoprodiks Gets Involved in Avtofrans’s Case in Yekaterinburg
- Yekaterinburg Council Lays Massive Claims against Atomstroycomplex
- Authorities look into Forum Group
- CIT Capital can’t go to arbitration court
- Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court keeps looking into the claim laid by Sverdlovsk Region public prosecution authorities against Glavsreduralstroy Management Company. The plaintiff demands that the defendant’s land renting agreement be declared invalid.